[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick

Thu Apr 7 12:01:14 UTC 2016

Jody, Marc,

Any input we could gather on this topic prior to our meeting next week
will certainly help make the discussion more effective then.

Would you be willing to share your perspective as to what you believe
should/could be the minimal set of validation parameters applicable to an
³Option 2² type of transition of existing data ?

Thank you in advance
Fabien

-----Original Message-----
From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jody Kolker
<jkolker at godaddy.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM
To: gtheo <gtheo at xs4all.nl>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com>
Cc: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of
Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick

>Agree with Marc that we should discuss what validation parameters are
>enforced for each attribute.  Would that be able to be covered in the
>next meeting or should we start with a update to the rules that Marc sent
>out previously?
>
>Thanks,
>Jody Kolker
>319-294-3933 (office)
>319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles
>Beadnall (cbeadnall at godaddy.com) with any feedback.
>
>This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by
>the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information.
>If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
>sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message
>and its attachments.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo
>Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:29 AM
>To: Anderson, Marc
>Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of
>Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
>
>Thanks Marc,
>
>Some great points there. Seems regardless the path forward we still need
>to discuss this more.
>
>Are there perhaps any contractual obligations on the Registry side that
>would prevent option two as the path forward?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Theo
>
>
>Anderson, Marc schreef op 2016-04-05 08:32 PM:
>> As I made the initial proposal for registries to implement validation
>> based on the EPP standards in RFC5733 I'm sure it will be no surprise
>> that I favor option 1.  I think RFC5733 is a well understood and
>> defined standard that represents a nice middle ground as far as
>> validation goes.
>> 
>> I recognize that there is an argument to be made for both less
>> validation as suggested in option 2 or more validation as was
>> expressed by some IRT members when the initial proposal was first
>> discussed (for example there was concern that the address 1 field was
>> not required).
>> 
>> If we do take the option 2 approach I request that we be clear on what
>> is meant by "registries do not impose any checks on registration
>> dataŠ"  That's fairly nebulous.  I assume we would still have all the
>> same fields but for example under phone extension, currently only
>> numeric values are accepted.  Would we remove this restriction and
>> allow ASCII characters as wellŠ. UTF8?  I would think we would still
>> need to make the Contact ID and Auth Info fields required.  I would
>> also want to keep the Max field lengths in place for the various
>> fields as that has sizing implications on our systems.
>> 
>> I think it's possible to sync the transition of new and existing
>> registrations with either option but I think either way it will take
>> longer for existing registrations.  I'm not opposed to syncing them up
>> but I don't think it makes sense to hold up one effort for the other.
>> 
>> I agree with Roger's statement about having a discussion on what a
>> bulk transfer is.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Marc
>> 
>> FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Fabien
>> Betremieux
>> SENT: Monday, April 04, 2016 6:48 PM
>> TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>> SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of
>> Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
>> 
>> Dear IRT members,
>> 
>> In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of
>> existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that
>> two alternative approaches are emerging:
>> 
>> Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data
>> before it can be accepted
>> 
>>  	* The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based
>> on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential
>> changes to such checks.
>> 	* The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would
>> likely to last a considerable amount of time due to:
>> 
>>  	* The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of
>> data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries' checks
>> 	* The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data
>> analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic
>> implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of
>> the implementation plan
>> 
>> Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration
>> data during the transition
>> 
>>  	* This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering
>> that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy
>> requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation
>> 	* The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy
>> recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk
>> transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly
>> synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by
>> defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are
>> thick.
>> 
>> Considering the outcome of the IRT's meeting with the RrSG in
>> Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is
>> taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like
>> to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is
>> the most applicable path forward.
>> 
>> We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move
>> forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8
>> April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting,
>> which we are planning to organize the following week.
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
>> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160407/3a79a013/smime.p7s>